World's biggest wealth fund excludes 52 coal-related groups

[tomm2thumbs]

Source: The Guardian

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, the world’s biggest, has excluded 52 coal-related companies in line with new ethical guidelines barring it from investing in such groups, Norway’s central bank said on Thursday. The move was seen as a sign of the growing influence investors wield in the fight against climate change.

In June 2015, the Scandinavian country’s parliament agreed to pull the fund out of mining or energy groups which derive more than 30% of their sales or activities from the coal business. <snip>

The fund’s investment policy is run according to strict ethical rules, with a focus on sustainable economic, environmental and social development. Those rules bar it from investing in companies accused of serious violations of human rights, child labour or serious environmental damage, as well as manufacturers of “particularly inhumane” arms, and also tobacco firms. The list of 52 companies includes some of those the fund has divested from since 2013 on its own initiative, judging the companies’ environmental impact was damaging to their financial viability.

Controlling 1.3% of the world’s market capitalisation, the fund is intended to finance Norway’s generous welfare state indefinitely.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/worlds-biggest-wealth-fund-excludes-52-coal-related-groups

[Botany]

1. Nice fund

Doing the right thing by the people and the planet

"Controlling 1.3% of the world’s market capitalisation, the fund is intended to finance
Norway’s generous welfare state indefinitely."

[OldEurope]

2. Doing the right thing?

The Norwegian Fund was mainly fueled by off shore drilling for oil and natural gas in the North Sea, in an area where earthquakes and seaquakes occur, tsunami and landslides at the coast included. An accident with some oil spilling could ruin vast parts of the Atlantic Ocean, killing fish and whales and birds and seals and walruses and some of the last polar bears. So I'm not sure that this is really a win for our environment.
Also, I'm afraid that Norway simply wants to sell more oil and gas for a better price.

But of course it's good for the people of Norway that the money is financing their welfare state and not some stinky rich tax diddlers with no conscience.



PS: Spellchecker wants seaquakes to be two words, but earthqakes not. Now I'm confused.

[Jemmons]

3. Pumping back all the oil would be very expensive. De-funding fossil fuels industries is better than

nothing and a lot more than most countries chose to do. The fund is regulated by a set of rules that makes environmental issues something they must consider while oil prices and market manipulations are not.